Uhhrrr

99 ms·

1021.
by Uhhrrr 16y ago
>until I see something that I consider better, there is no reason to quit. You are right, but this article is geared to those who have too much perseverance, and consequently wind up with a pile of mediocre time sinks which are unreward
1022.
by Uhhrrr 16y ago
I can't comment on Google goings-on, but sometimes jumping ship is simply explained by looking at stock option vesting dates. Google only had 6,000 employees at the beginning of 2006.
1023.
by Uhhrrr 16y ago
He was still at CMU when he was hacking Wii-motes: http://johnnylee.net/projects/
1024.
by Uhhrrr 16y ago
It is certainly interesting news to me that 5 out of 5 random users won't change their habits, even after someone provably breaks into their account and tells them how to avoid it in the future.
1025.
by Uhhrrr 16y ago
Is it relevant to mention that Ozzie was/is one of joelonsoftware's canonical examples of "Architecture Astronauts" (that is, someone whose idea of minimum viable product is every app sharing everything)? http://www.joelonsoftware.com/arti
1026.
by Uhhrrr 16y ago
Do you mean Haltek in MV? I think it's gone now. But that was indeed a wonderful store.
1027.
by Uhhrrr 16y ago
If you want to be productive ASAP, and have done Java for ten years, I would suggest Java. Picking up new technologies is great, but even the most user-friendly ones will have a learning curve. IMHO it's best to start with a new language/fr
1028.
by Uhhrrr 16y ago
This is a terrible monopoly, because all "ten or so" angel investors are involved.
1029.
by Uhhrrr 16y ago
"My child learned to merge at 7 months - we're so proud!"
1030.
by Uhhrrr 16y ago
Above is a worthy question and one decent answer to it. I don't think Conway is disinforming here, but he probably is indeed giving names of more well-known companies and keeping some newer names closer to his chest. I'd say Conway is also
1031.
by Uhhrrr 16y ago
Maybe it's because I've been reading HN, but this seems pretty backwards-looking to me.
1032.
by Uhhrrr 16y ago
The most recent graphic designer to apply at my workplace was asked to demo his Photoshop skills on the fly ("Can you make me look thinner?"). He did great and we hired him. Also, I've worked with programmers who definitely should have been
1033.
by Uhhrrr 16y ago
Yeah - it's not really (0.5 A + 2 A)/2, it's (0.5 A1 + 2 A2)/2, where A1=2*X (as you have above) and A2=X. Substituting, your expected value upon changing is 3X/2, which is, surprise surprise, the same as the expected value for the envelope